HUMA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, April 25, 2002

Á

1115

The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby--Ajax, Lib.))

Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea--Gore--Malton--Springdale, Lib.)

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.)

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.)

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South--Weston, Lib.)

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, BQ)

The Chair

Ms. Cari Dominguez (Chair, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)

Á

1120

The Chair

Ms. Cari Dominguez

Á

1125

Á

1130

Á

1135

The Chair

Á

1140

Ms. Cari Dominguez

Mr. Reed Elley

The Chair

Mr. Corbett Anderson (Senior Attorney, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)

The Chair

Á

1145

Mr. Reed Elley

Ms. Cari Dominguez

Mr. Corbett Anderson

The Chair

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Á

1150

Ms. Cari Dominguez

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Ms. Cari Dominguez

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Ms. Cari Dominguez

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

Á

1155

Ms. Cari Dominguez

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Â

1200

Ms. Cari Dominguez

Mr. Corbett Anderson

Â

1205

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

Mr. Corbett Anderson

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Cari Dominguez

Mr. Alan Tonks

Â

1210

Ms. Cari Dominguez

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Cari Dominguez

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley

Â

1215

Ms. Cari Dominguez

Mr. Reed Elley

The Chair

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Ms. Cari Dominguez

Â

1220

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Ms. Cari Dominguez

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Ms. Cari Dominguez

Mr. Gurbax Malhi

Ms. Cari Dominguez

The Chair

Mr. Joe McGuire

Ms. Cari Dominguez

Â

1225

Mr. Joe McGuire

Ms. Cari Dominguez

Mr. Joe McGuire

Ms. Cari Dominguez

Mr. Joe McGuire

Ms. Cari Dominguez

Mr. Corbett Anderson

Mr. Joe McGuire

Mr. Corbett Anderson

Ms. Cari Dominguez

Mr. Joe McGuire

Ms. Cari Dominguez

Â

1230

Mr. Joe McGuire

The Chair

Mr. Paul Crête

Ms. Cari Dominguez

Mr. Corbett Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Cari Dominguez

Â

1235

Mr. Alan Tonks

Ms. Cari Dominguez

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Corbett Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Corbett Anderson

The Chair

Ms. Cari Dominguez

Â

1240

The Chair

Ms. Cari Dominguez

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

---

NUMBER 060

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, April 25, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1115)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby--Ajax, Lib.)): I call the 60th meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to order. We are undertaking, pursuant to the order of reference dated December 3, 2001, and to section 44 of the Employment Equity Act, a statutory review of the Act.

    This morning it is a great honour to have with us from the United States Ms. Cari Dominguez, who was sworn in as chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on August 6, 2001, for a five-year term. Ms. Dominguez was nominated by President George W. Bush on May 10, and was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate on July 19, 2001. As chair, she serves as the chief executive officer for the five-member commission. Prior to becoming chair of the EEOC, Ms. Dominguez worked in the private sector, holding senior positions at two international executive search firms. As EEOC chair, Ms. Dominguez continues her distinguished career in federal government, having served in the Department of Labor as assistant secretary for employment standards and as director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. In the latter position Ms. Dominguez launched and led the department's glass ceiling initiative, designed to remove barriers in the workplace affecting the advancement of individuals on the basis of race or gender. The American Biographical Institute has listed her as one of the 2,000 most notable American women.

    We are honoured to have you here with us today as we are reviewing our Employment Equity Act. I know you've been informed by our clerk that we will start off with a brief presentation, followed by a rather vigorous and very informative question and answer period.

    I will ask you to begin your remarks, but before I do that, it might be interesting for you if the members of my committee introduced themselves and let you know who they are and where they come from. I would start with the parliamentary secretary for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Malhi.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea--Gore--Malton--Springdale, Lib.): My name is Gurbax Malhi, and I am a member of Parliament from Bramalea--Gore--Malton--Springdale. I was first elected to the House of Commons in 1993, then in 1997, then in November 2000. I am also the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour since last September.

[Translation]

    Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): My name is Raymonde Folco and I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, who is also responsible for disabled persons. I represent a riding just north of Montreal called Laval West.

    Good day.

[English]

    Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): My name is Joe McGuire, and I'm a member of Parliament from Prince Edward Island. I was elected in 1988, and subsequently re-elected four times.

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Hello. My name is Diane St-Jacques and I am the member for the riding of Shefford, which is in the Eastern Townships in the Province of Quebec. I was first elected in 1997.

[English]

    Mr. Alan Tonks (York South--Weston, Lib.): My name is Alan Tonks--we were having a chat. I represent a Toronto riding, York South. This is my first term, elected a year and a half ago, but it's my twenty-eighth year in politics. I was the Mayor of York, the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, the chairman of Greater Toronto. Now I'm learning things from the other side, from the federal perspective.

    It's nice to have you here this morning.

[Translation]

    Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques, BQ): Hello. My name is Paul Crête and I am a member of the Bloc Quebecois. I represent the riding of Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup--Témiscouata--Les Basques. You are not required to remember that. I have been a member of the human resources development committee for five years. I would also mention that I have two daughters and a son and that I hope that they will have equal opportunities as they go through life.

[English]

    The Chair: And I'm Judi Longfield. I serve as chair of the human resources committee. I served a term as parliamentary secretary for the Minister of Labour. I am in my second term as a member of Parliament for the area of Whitby-Ajax, which is just outside metropolitan Toronto.

    Ms. Cari Dominguez (Chair, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission): Thank you very much Madam Chair and distinguished members of the committee. I am very honoured to appear before you today in this magnificent and historic setting of the Houses of Parliament.

    On behalf of the EEOC, let me thank you for inviting us to appear and address this committee and share our experiences in the United States as you conduct your review of the Canadian Employment Equity Act.

    With me today is Mr. Corbett Anderson, who is senior attorney in the EEOC's office of legal counsel. We're here to answer whatever questions you may have about our own equal employment laws and programs in the United States and to provide whatever assistance we can render you as you deliberate in your parliamentary review. Of course, I'll get the easy questions, and he will get the hard questions.

Á  (1120)  

    The Chair: That's how it works here too.

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: We're also here very much to listen and to learn. For example, we've already learned that your law, unlike ours, has a built-in mechanism for parliamentary review every five years. This is a significant point of difference between our two systems. While we don't have that legislative requirement, your process is indeed very instructive to us.

    This morning Mr. Anderson and I also enjoyed a wonderful and very informative breakfast meeting hosted for us by the Minister of Labour, Claudette Bradshaw, with members of her staff. I want to publicly acknowledge this and thank Minister Bradshaw for her kind hospitality. I believe there are many benefits to be gained from exchanging ideas and sharing best practices as our countries continue our long tradition of collaborating on matters of equal employment policy. Canada and the United States have shared many fundamental values and ideals, and the principle of equal opportunity in the workplace is a shared and enduring bond for us. This idea forms the foundation for our efforts on both sides of the border to ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities have every opportunity to participate in the economic life and benefits our society has to offer. I hope this invitation will lead to many more productive exchanges between our countries during my tenure as commissioner.

    Today I'd like to briefly provide you with an overview of the United States system for enforcing our civil rights in employment, our laws and their history, our institutions and their responsibilities. I'm also going to focus on our current state of EEO with respect to employment issues affecting minorities, women, and people with disabilities. Finally, I'd like to tell you a little about some of the initiatives we have launched at the EEOC since I became the chair of the commission.

    Let me begin with where we've been. The EEOC was created by Congress in the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act, coming into existence at a turning point in our nation's history, at a time when racial segregations were still a pervasive problem in our society and our workplaces, and acts of discrimination and exclusion were blatant, not subtle. The EEOC was charged with the mission of eliminating segregation and discrimination through enforcement of the act's employment title, title VII. Through a series of other laws, our coverage goes beyond race, sex, religion, and national origin to now include older workers and people with disabilities.

    Combined, these federal laws protect more than 86% of our U.S. workforce. In addition, our system is built on the principle of federalism. This means that working in concert with the laws the EEOC enforces are numerous anti-discrimination laws enacted at the state and municipal levels throughout the United States, often reaching smaller employers. So together, the federal, state, and local laws protect most U.S. workers from discrimination.

    Although the EEOC is a very small agency, we have about 2,800 employees dispersed in 51 district offices throughout the United States, and we have a $300 million budget. It serves as our nation's lead agency for equal employment matters and enforcements. By executive order, the President invested the EEOC with authority within the executive branch to coordinate and ensure consistency in other federal agencies' equal employment policies and regulations. Therefore, we work very closely with the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice.

    The Department of Labor carries out our long-standing public policy of requiring those companies that do business with the government to do more than simply not discriminate. As a condition of contracting with the government, they must agree to engage in affirmative action for minorities, women, and people with disabilities. I'm going to get into that in greater detail in just a moment. I know you have considerable interest in affirmative action.

    The Department of Justice enforces federal laws against discrimination in housing, public accommodation, voting, and education. It also litigates, on behalf of the EEOC, charges of employment discrimination that are actually filed against state and local government employers.

Á  (1125)  

    In addition to these coordinative responsibilities, the EEOC has been given a very special role with respect to the federal government's own workforce. We actually set the rules for resolving complaints of employment discrimination in federal employment. We also oversee affirmative action in the federal sector, and this is the sole area in which the EEOC plays a role in the area of affirmative action. I will, again, go into more detail about this program, if you would like, during our question and answer period.

    Let me share with you one final historical point that deserves mention before I go on, and that is with regard to affirmative action as it has evolved in the United States. During the 1980s there was much debate in our country about the future of affirmative action as practised by employers. At that time the concern was that affirmative action in employment, whether real or in theory, amounted to quotas or set-asides or unfair preferential treatment of minorities and women. In response to questions raised about the proper legal scope of affirmative action, the United States Supreme Court issued key decisions upholding the lawfulness of voluntary affirmative action in certain narrowly defined circumstances. These decisions set the parameters for employers today. In essence, the court said taking race or gender into account is lawful when used to correct a clear imbalance in traditionally segregated occupations and when the rights of men and non-minorities are not unnecessarily trampled upon. Strict quotas are not allowed, nor are preferences for unqualified individuals. Most affirmative action programs never approach these edges of the legal envelope, and once understood, they tend not to generate such controversy.

    As practised today, affirmative action primarily means developing creative, but fair ways to ensure that applicant pools for hiring and promotion are diverse, evaluating current policies and practices, and taking steps to monitor progress in promoting equal employment opportunity. This is the crux of the present-day affirmative action requirements imposed on federal contractors by executive order. It's under the executive order and its regulations where contractors who have 50 employees on a contract of $50,000 or more are required to develop affirmative action programs. These plans are designed to enhance access and inclusion of women and minorities at all levels and in all areas of employment, and they do this through a series of action-oriented steps.

    One of those steps requires employers to conduct a workforce analysis. This is really the heart of the affirmative action planning process. The analysis compares by job categories the participation rates of women and minorities in a contractor's workforce with their availability in the marketplace. If the analysis shows that underutilization exists, they must set realistic and attainable goals, not strict quotas or set-asides, for the specific underutilized groups.

    Again, goals are not designed to achieve proportional representation or equal results. It's the process of goal-setting that is used to target and measure the effectiveness of affirmative action efforts to eliminate and prevent discrimination. Contractors, under our system, are not penalized for not meeting those goals. They're responsible for making good-faith efforts to achieve their goals, and good-faith efforts may include expanded efforts in outreach, recruitment, training, mentoring, and other activities designed to broaden the pool of qualified individuals, including minorities and women.

    As a former director of the office responsible for enforcing the executive order--although it's not my current area of responsibility, it was my area of responsibility several years ago--I would be delighted to go into greater detail on that aspect of our laws, if you so wish.

Á  (1130)  

    The question for us is today's workplace, which is so vastly different for all of us from what it was even a decade ago. Technological advancements, globalization, and demographic shifts have reshaped the workforce. At the same time, discrimination today is more subtle, and therefore more difficult to root out. We see the face of discrimination every day in the charges we receive from people who walk in our doors. We continue to get over 80,000 charges annually, and the issues from these charges put a mirror to the U.S. workplace and give us great insight into what's happening and where to focus our efforts.

    About 35% of the charges we receive are race-related, 30% gender-related; 20% concern disability, 20% age, and those two are the fastest growing segment of our workload. With the greying of America, we're seeing an increase in those two. We also have a 10% charge load in national origin allegations, as well as 2% religious discrimination. These categories will not add up to 100%, because individuals file on a multiple basis. A women with a disability with an ethnic background is counted in all three categories.

    Our main issues today are not the ones of the 1960s, 1970s, or even 1980s, such as hiring policies, failure to integrate facilities. The issues really involve retaliation, harassment, and failure to accommodate. They seem to be the three predominant areas where our charge activity has increased. Discrimination manifests itself in more insidious ways, such as lack of access to assignments, training, and mentoring opportunities that pave the way for progress to the highest corporate levels. Where blatant discrimination continues to occur in our system, we usually see it with employers who are unfamiliar with the laws or are unsophisticated types of companies, and by that I mean retail and manufacturing enterprises with very little human resources counselling and guidance within their companies.

    So how are we addressing these trends of workplace change and shifting demographics? Rather than being reactive, when I joined the commission, I believed the employment issues of today required us to recast the commission in a more balanced light, both as a resource of information and as a clearing house of best employment practices, as well as enforcer of the laws.

    Some issues of discrimination have not been reaching the commission at all. Some segments of our workforce who face discrimination either don't know where to turn or will not turn to the government for help. Our data show, for instance, that women and people of colour have not made significant advancement at all levels and in all areas of employment, particularly in the corporate world and the professions. For people with disabilities the challenges are even greater. Their challenge is getting hired, and our challenge is debunking the myth that the cost of providing reasonable accommodation is prohibitive, or getting employers to focus on their abilities, rather than their disabilities, as the core skills that are necessary.

    Therefore, one of our central initiatives this year is to strengthen our outreach capabilities by casting a broader net, to include and support the needs of all employee segments. This is why we launched our “Freedom to Compete” initiative, which is a communications and outreach campaign that promotes free and open competition in the workplace To emphasize our theme, we launched a series of public service announcements timed to coincide with the Winter Olympics and associate freedom to compete with talent and ability.

    We're also in the midst of a series of round table discussions with business and community leaders, executives, and attorneys who influence opinion and drive change in the workplace. We believe the most effective route to change is from the top, so we're reaching out to the upper levels of the corporate world to enlist their input and support. These sessions have generated tremendous insight, very candid and thought-provoking discussions about both the hidden and the blatant barriers to advancement that women, minorities, and people with disabilities continue to face.

    The other major new initiative I'd like to mention is designed to remove barriers for people with disability. It is the “New Freedom Initiative”, a government-wide initiative that was launched by President Bush shortly after he took office in 2001.

Á  (1135)  

    Eleven years ago, our landmark Americans with Disabilities Act, one of the most significant civil rights laws since the Civil Rights Act, was signed into law, extending civil rights protection. At that time we had 43 million individuals with disabilities. However, we have not seen much progress, even after the law was passed. There are now 54 million Americans with disabilities, a full 20% of our population, and we have not made much progress in mainstreaming them into the workplace.

    Because of that, we hope our new freedom initiative will increase access through assistive and universally designed technologies, expand educational opportunities, and increase the ability of people with disabilities to be integrated into the workforce and daily community lives. EEOC has a critical role to play in the new freedom initiative. We're working with the small business sector, the fastest growing sector of the economy, as it creates new jobs. We've conducted a number of workshops. We're also working closely with chambers of commerce, trade associations, and small business development centres, showcasing recruitment sources and tax incentives, to encourage the hiring of individuals with disabilities. We truly hope these efforts will bring more people with disabilities into full participation.

    Finally, let me say a word about the events of September 11 and what proved to be the EEOC's largest challenge over the past months. The September 11 attacks have caused a surge in complaints of backlash discrimination, that is, complaints filed by individuals who are or who are perceived to be Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern, South Asian, or Sikh. Since September 11 EEOC, working with the Departments of Justice and Labour, has taken steps to prevent backlash discrimination from happening and to alert employers, caution them not to allow misdirected anger to affect innocent men and women who happen to come from those backgrounds. We've conducted a vigorous outreach campaign with community groups, employers, and government agencies to promote tolerance and guard against workplace discrimination, and we'll continue to do so as long as necessary. Our charge activity, based on religious discrimination, as filed by Muslims, has tripled since September 11.

    Before concluding, let me take this opportunity to recognize the overwhelming support Canada has shown to the United States in response to the September 11 attacks. On a very personal level, we at the EEOC experienced this support when one of my staff members was among the thousands of airline passengers diverted to Gander, Newfoundland, on that terrible day. From what I understand, you received over 50,000 unexpected guests that morning from over 35 different countries, speaking dozens of languages. My staffer stayed out of school for four days, but rather than feeling stranded, she felt embraced by the Canadians. They all rallied, everyone in the Gander area, from teenagers to elderly citizens, to bring homemade casseroles and blankets and pillow cases. This remarkable generosity continues to set a shining example for the rest of the world.

    We truly live in a rapidly changing, unpredictable world. Sir Winston Churchill's words from a speech in 1939 to the Canada Club in London still hold true today: “That long Canadian frontier, from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans, guarded only by neighbourly respect and honourable obligations, is an example to every country and a pattern for the future of the world.” We at the EEOC are honoured to continue our tradition of partnering with you in our efforts to advance equal employment opportunity. Thank you again for your warm welcome and gracious hospitality. We are now looking forward to your questions and our interaction.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    To respond to your kind comments about the residents of Gander, I know all residents of Gander feel their lives have been greatly enriched as a result of being able to open their doors to people who were stranded. I've heard that Gander now considers everyone who was there, not necessarily of their own making, as an honorary resident of Gander and would welcome them back at any time.

    I'm going to move now to the question and answer period. Mr. Elley came in just seconds after you began and did not have an opportunity to introduce himself, so I'm going to give Reed the opportunity to do that and to start off with the first line of questions. We'll try to keep it to about five minute rounds, and that will give us an opportunity to get back on second rounds.

    Mr. Elley.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    I do want to thank you so much for coming and taking time out from your busy schedules to help us in our employment equity study here in Canada. Quite contrary to some of our sports fans' reactions during the singing of national anthems lately, I think you know Canadians are very pleased to be neighbours of the United States and to feel we're very much at one in the face of the kinds of threats we see globally. We want to work together for the mutual peace and prosperity of the globe.

    I am the senior critic for labour for the Canadian Alliance, which is the second largest party in our Parliament, the official opposition. So it gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to ask you some questions about your experience down in the United States with employment equity, as we call it in Canada.

    I was very interested to hear your figures for the kinds of complaints that come to you. I'm sure this reflects changing demographics, changing social mores, and all the things that are going on in your nation. I think we see some parallels in our own country. However, I think our experience in the evolution of our employment equity has been somewhat different. We have not had, of course, large segments of our population who are visible minorities, which may have affected legislation in our respective countries, but we certainly have a good deal of commonality. However, I'm wondering if there is some difference in the way we have traditionally resolved some of these disputes. I don't want to be presumptuous, but it seems you have more court litigation with some of these things than we do. Is that because of the historical background? Is that just the way it has been handled? Do you see a decrease in that in favour of mediation towards cooperation and resolution?

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: Thank you, Mr. Elley.

    As we've gained more experience and as the EEO laws have evolved, we have introduced new management practices that have helped us steer many of these disputes out of the court system into more practical administrative actions. We have a very strong mediation program. The mediation program we have takes, on average, about 84 days to process the dispute, as compared to 180-some days of investigating a complaint and all that. We have a priority charge handling process. When the complainant, the charging party, comes in, we take a look at the merit of the allegations and make a determination as to whether there's probable cause, whether we need to get more information, or whether we should issue a right-to-sue letter, which we do if we believe there's not sufficient information to use our resources. The complainant, the charging party, has the freedom to take the matter to court. We have the freedom to select those charges that we think have more merit.

    Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Anderson, did you want to add anything?

    Mr. Corbett Anderson (Senior Attorney, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission): I just want to say, to echo Chair Dominguez, that it's a pleasure and a privilege to be here.

    Our mediation program has been very successful, as Chair Dominguez noted. Most charging parties who agree to mediate the charge are very happy with the outcome. Most employers who agree to mediate the charge are also very happy with the outcome. However, we are trying to continue outreach to the employer community, which traditionally has been very skeptical of mediation under the auspices of EEOC. We're trying to trumpet the message that mediation, alternative dispute resolution generally, is important as an equitable and speedy way to resolve the complaint.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Elley, you still have a few moments remaining.

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. Reed Elley: One of the negative reactions we sometimes hear in our country about employment equity is that it could, at the local level, be interpreted to be hiring based more on equity than on merit. I wonder if that same concern is raised in your country. How do you address that concern, particularly from segments of the population who may feel alienated because they're being passed over, they believe, despite their merits?

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: We have been facing those same concerns since the inception of affirmative action programs. Unfortunately, the term has been misused and abused at many levels. I think it's a matter of an educational and outreach effort to really inform and educate as to what affirmative action truly is. When President Johnson signed an executive order, he said, you don't take somebody who's been shackled up in chains, put him at the starting line of a race, and say, go run the race. You've got to condition this person, you've got to train them and prepare them. That's what affirmative action is. But because of the flux we have in the workplace, people you have educated and trained move on, and then we have this new cadre of people who have to understand.

    I also have to say that often employers may be reluctant to provide honest feedback to an employee who's not hired or promoted. It's a lot easier to say, well, we really needed some diversity, we really needed to bring in a woman. I think it's been used, unfortunately, for the wrong reasons on both sides. But again, it's an educational and outreach effort.

    Corbett, did you want to add something to that?

    Mr. Corbett Anderson: Affirmative action in the United States means, typically, a wide variety of policies and practices, beginning with recruitment efforts that seek to diversify the pool of people considered for jobs, mentoring persons on the job to make sure people feel as though they have a stake in the success of the organization, making sure succession plans include people of diversity, women, individuals with disabilities, minority group members, not because they are women and minorities, but because all the members of the workforce should be embraced in their ability to contribute and should be supported and furthered to compete in the workplace.

    Some of the misconceptions about affirmative action stem from preferences, but as Ms. Dominguez stated in her early remarks, the Supreme Court has expressed in numerous opinions that only in very narrow circumstances, strictly limited by the law, are preferences allowed. In the vast majority of circumstances affirmative action simply means broadening the pool of people who are considered for jobs, monitoring for progress, and ensuring equal employment opportunity for everyone.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Madame St-Jacques.

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Like my colleague, I am very happy that you are with us today.

Á  (1150)  

    Ms. Dominguez, you mentioned in your remarks that you often receive complaints for different reasons, including a lack of access to more senior positions. What steps are you taking to help people acquire the training necessary to gain access to these positions?

[English]

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: We encourage employers. Our statutes are quite narrow, so we can't mandate the development of training programs, for example. But I think, with our shortage of talent and the war on talent we're experiencing, employers realize that professional development opportunities are a competitive edge, if they want to attract and retain a base of talented individuals.

    What we've noted, particularly as it relates to women and minorities. is that they reach a certain level in a corporation, and then the famous glass ceiling kicks in: they see the top, but they can't get there. Often it has to do with the lack of rotational assignments, the lack of leadership development, or maybe it is something about a style or the culture that's keeping them away from the upper levels. So what we try to do is work with the employer community and say, these are the barriers. You're spending hundreds of thousands of dollars attracting and training these employees, and several years later they leave. These are some of the barriers that are causing you to lose talented people. These are some of the barriers that are causing you to face some potential liabilities.

    We have a huge case at the moment, an investment banking lawsuit, that has to do with failure to promote women into managing director positions. It had to with the way clients were being assigned. The men were being assigned very high net worth clients, and the women were being given different levels of the client base. As a result, at the end of the day, their bonus opportunities and their income potential were quite different.

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Since we are talking about women, I would say that the problem is that women often have children and that it is therefore difficult to get to more senior positions, which have more demanding requirements in terms of hours.

    Are companies taking steps to make more flexible hours available to women with young children?

[English]

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: We're trying to provide incentives related to recognition and best practices. One of the things I'm working on is making the connection between profitability in a company and the broad array of family-friendly practices and inclusion. While we cannot dictate, as a condition of the law, that employers have these types of programs and services, we are finding that employers that don't have them are losing talent to those that do. You find some of the most profitable companies have these types of programs. So we use our bully pulpit to encourage employers to do that.

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: You say that you have awareness campaigns to promote designated groups. Do you find that these campaigns have led to an increase in the number of such employees hired? Is there less discrimination or less harassment in the workplace? Have your campaigns produced results?

[English]

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: We just started. I joined in August, and it's a little early to tell. We're getting information so far, anecdotal information, not hard data. But we are hopeful, as we use other tools, peer pressure. Employers are very good about wanting to know what the members in their industry are doing. So I if say this bank is doing this, some of the other banks want to follow suit.

    We are getting some very positive response. It is not just the stick, it's the carrot and the stick that is the most effective.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Monsieur Crête.

[Translation]

    Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for your presentation. It has been very instructive.

    You said that there was an important difference between the Canadian and American systems, which is that a mandatory review of the legislation is provided for in Canada.

    If this were the case in the United States, where would you want to see the focus? For instance, would you want even more emphasis on the legal aspect, the stick, or on the incentives, the carrot? That is the first part of my question.

    Second, there are two pieces of legislation concerning older workers and the disabled. What changes would you like to put forward to obtain better results, particularly in the case of older workers? This is a new development, which is becoming increasingly widespread in the workplace.

    Third, does the American legislation contain a mechanism to evaluate the multiple category factor, such as the case of a disabled black woman? Have you any sort of mechanism to evaluate the cumulative effect of this kind of factor? Thank you.

Á  (1155)  

[English]

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: Again, I find your system of parliamentary review extremely attractive, because it is a disincentive for me, as the implementer of these laws, to have to often defer to or wait for some lawsuit to reach Supreme Court to get it better defined for us. One of the issues, in regard to the Americans with Disabilities Act, we're still struggling with is, what is a disability, how does one define a person with disability, is this covered or how? As we've gained more experience in implementing these laws, we're finding that the Supreme Court is addressing matters under very narrow constructs, and while that's helpful to us in our policy development, it's not ideal. If I had my way, I would open up the statute and try to address it point by point. I would change that. I would look at the definition, I would look at the three prongs we have along those lines.

    We do have voluntary compliance requirements in our statutes, but I believe that even with the 80,000 charges we're getting, we're only covering a very small component of the workforce. Our typical charging party is an hourly wage earner who may be working in a restaurant or in a retail operation. We're not getting a lot of complaints filed or concerns expressed from professionals, from entry level officials and managers, from technical software developers, people in technology. We think some of it is generational. We're finding that what we call the Generation X-ers, workers up to 35 years of age, don't see the government as the place to go to to have their issues resolved. They have a very different outlook from baby boomers. Our baby boomers say, we marched in civil rights, we did this, we deserve something from the federal government now. The Generation X-ers say, this is equal opportunity, that means you have to give me training, you have to give me rotational assignments, and I'll take care of things myself. I'm finding, as we've structured our approach to ensuring equal opportunity, that we're missing some opportunities to broaden the base of access and inclusion for individuals who don't see us as a typical resource.

    So I'd like to include more voluntary outreach, more incentives, be a clearing house of best practices, modelling what is a good practice, what is a sound mediation program. Next to drug cases, employment discrimination lawsuits are the largest component of our litigation docket in the courts.

    My sense is that age discrimination is probably going to be the fastest growing segment of all, and that cuts across gender. We have as many men as we do women filing on age discrimination. So I think that's a serious component of our workload, and we need to address those issues very differently from the way we have traditionally addressed our discrimination issues.

    The Chair: You'll get a second round, Mr. Crête.

    Madame Folco.

[Translation]

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I would like to congratulate you on this wonderful employment equity programs initiative. Your country has taken a great step forward for its own citizens, and this measure has become a model for Canada and other countries. That is my first comment.

    I would like to ask you two questions. My colleague asked about older workers. We too are in the process of tackling the problem of an aging population. I would like to hear your views on the advisability of including older workers in the categories identified in the legislation.

    Second, I note that gays and lesbians are not covered in your employment equity programs. Would you comment on this, which I think is a shortcoming?

    Finally, with respect to the disabled, we have noted in our programs that of the four categories identified—women, visible minorities, as they are called, disabled persons, and aboriginals—it is the disabled whose chances of finding employment have improved the least. I think that 75% of disabled persons, and maybe more, do not work or have no prospect of working. Would you comment on this category of individuals in the United States, who are covered by your equity legislation? You said that they too had problems and that the legislation alone does not appear to be succeeding in getting them into the workplace. Could you tell us what you plan to do so that they are better represented in the American workforce?

  (1200)  

[English]

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: Thank you very much, Madame Folco.

    I am very troubled by the fact that even after all these years of enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act, we still haven't seen that progress. I wonder often whether it's a matter of outreach. If they don't file with us, it's hard for us to find out exactly what the issues are. Of course, when we're dealing with multiple disabilities, we're not dealing with a very cohesive group, but the disabilities come in all shapes and as either visible or invisible types of disabilities. So it's very hard for us to really get our arms around what constitutes a disability.

    We're trying to refine our approach even as we speak. I find that using tax credits and educating employers to focus on the abilities, rather than the disabilities, is good. For example, since September 11 a number of our employers have gone into distributive work force arrangements. They don't want to keep all the employees in one building any more. This is a wonderful opportunity for the use of tele-work, using individuals with disabilities, who may have transportation challenges and difficulties, to become more mainstream. So we're out very aggressively marketing the talent pool we have of people with disabilities in these types of occupations.

    People with disabilities face the same issues as older workers,. It's a skills gap. So we are working in connection with the Department of Labor and job centres to make sure they develop the kinds of skills that are in demand today and that may allow them to carry out their job in different settings, at home or at one of the other kinds of centres.

    So from that perspective, I think it's a matter of having the right skills, providing tax credits and incentives, and reaching out to the small-business community and some of the other sectors that really are not as concerned, they're just desperately looking for talent, so they don't have the old preconceived notions of what constitutes an ideal employee, but rather, are willing to take the person as available.

    With respect to your gays and lesbians question, we do have city and local ordinances. I lived in San Francisco for many years, and we had a very active and strong community there. I know there have been a number of potential bills under consideration, but that has not reached us. Tangentially, as it relates to sexual harassment, for example, same-sex harassment, we have had some issues that we've considered to be covered under our statutes, but nothing openly. I agree, I think that's an area our Congress needs to examine.

    Corbett, did you want to add anything?

    Mr. Corbett Anderson: I will just add that the U.S. Congress does have pending before it the Employment Non-discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination in private employment, and, I believe, public employment, on the basis of sexual orientation.

    Regarding your question related to older workers, I think that ties in with the question about individuals with disabilities. The issue is debunking the myths and stereotypes that may exist to the disadvantage of older workers and individuals with disabilities. In our system we tend to see more charges by older workers against companies when there is an economic downturn, for example, and we suspect that sometimes employers don't really value the ability and experience older workers may have. The same is true with individuals with disabilities. Through our new freedom initiative and other efforts, we're trying to focus employers on the ability, not the disability.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: Just to help members, we'll have Mr. Tonks, Mr. Elley, Mr. Malhi, Mr. McGuire, and Mr. Crête.

    It's your turn, Mr. Tonks.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

    I have a general question. I've always wondered about the characterization of affirmative action in the American tradition as the march along the road for civil rights. In our tradition we talk about civil rights as being human rights. We, in fact, entrench the gathering of data and the monitoring of statutory responsibilities and obligations in our Human Rights Commission. Is that a substantive difference, or is it just a semantic difference in the two traditions? One is a matter of civil rights and processes related to that, the other a matter of human rights. I'd be interested in your response to that.

    Mr. Corbett Anderson: I would say it's more semantic than not. Our tradition of civil rights, in my view, really emanates from the U.S. Constitution, which established that persons are equal under the law regardless of race or colour or sex. That's a tradition under the U.S. Constitution. I'm sure it's one under the Canadian Constitution as well. Other than semantics, I can't think of a difference that is really substantive.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: As, then, the experience applies to two designated groups to which we are accountable, our aboriginal, indigenous peoples, our first nations peoples, what has been the progress with representation of your first nations peoples in respect of the objectives of the legislation, their workforce availability compared to what they have actually achieved?

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: Your first nations people would be what we call native Americans. It's an unusual situation for us, because most of our native Americans continue to live on their reservations in their tribes. We have tribal employment rights offices to make sure that as employers come into their tribes, they have access to employment opportunities. What has been difficult to do is assimilate them into the workplace outside the tribes. To the extent that employers have established employment opportunities within their designated tribal areas, I believe there has been a very positive outcome, because of the outreach and the education. The challenge we have is with the integration and the cross-movement from a representative of one tribe to another. There are still exclusionary activities going on. You have fairly well defined requirements within the tribes.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I see. We have been listening to and receiving delegations from our first nations peoples, and we have been looking at the workforce availability statistics within the federal government, the mobility and the representation of our first nations people in our own institutions of government, outside even our Indian affairs branch--in our transport department, in our bureaucracy. What has been the experience with your first nations peoples in federal government representation?

  (1210)  

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: I think we have some data. That's probably the least represented group. We have, obviously, African Americans, Hispanic, Asian Americans, and native Americans; those are four designated categories in the minorities. Native Americans, of all the groups, are the least represented in federal sector employment; I believe it may be 1% to 2% of the overall workforce. So we haven't done much better than, or probably fared as well as, you in their assimilation. To the extent that they are represented, they're usually with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, very self-contained, related to their own native American issues, those types of programs.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: You talked about affirmative action, and I've been raised to believe that affirmative action was quota-oriented in the American tradition, while in our tradition it's not. You did say that where there was a matter of race and gender and a wide differential between the workforce availability and the employment rate, it could be adjusted. But you said at the same time that strict quotas are not allowed. How do you balance those two?

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: It's like taking our blood pressure or temperature. All things being equal, this is the standard. If all our practices and programs were free of exclusionary barriers or discriminatory actions, this is what the workforce would look like. That's the preliminary assumption we're making.

    I'll give you a perfect example. We had a situation where one of the employers was not meeting his affirmative action goals, and he couldn't figure out why. We went in and audited--this is when I was wearing my Department of Labor hat, before EEOC. We discovered that this particular employer gave his employees a $1,000 incentive if they would refer candidates for employment who were ultimately hired. It sounded like a very worthy goal--I like my workforce, and if they can find me people like them, this is great. The problem was that the people doing the referrals were all from the same race and the same gender, so what they were doing was cloning that company. It was a good concept, but a very exclusionary concept.

    We're finding that the outcome is not yielding the desired intent. So we need to broaden and say, why are we not attracting, and at a level that's supportive and inclusive of diversity? It may very well be that our programs and practices are yielding these results. I think affirmative action is, if I'm recruiting at certain Ivy League universities, what about Howard University, Emory College, and some of these other places? So it's a certain requirement on the part of the employers to make sure they are proactive and inclusive.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I see. Thank you.

    Thank you, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: Mr. Elley

    Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    The members of this committee, I know, are aware that I have a little daughter who's physically challenged, so I'm very concerned about people with disabilities finding their place in the workforce. It doesn't come as a surprise, but still it was a shock, to hear you say there were 54 million—more than all the people in Canada—in the United States who have disabilities, and you receive about 20% of your complaints because of problems with people with disabilities. We have heard at this committee from people with disabilities—and probably they're the most vocal group—who say our employment equity legislation is not working, there just isn't employment for people with disabilities. As the father of a disabled child, I have some understanding of why that takes place, but it still boggles my mind that our society as a whole, across the borders, is not more enlightened, so as to do something about this. Surely, you must have some thoughts about why this is taking place in our societies. If you can help us in trying to solve our mutual problem on this, we'd be more than glad to hear some solutions.

  (1215)  

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: Again, Mr. Elley, I think it has a lot to do with debunking these perceptions. First of all, there's tremendous concern that providing reasonable accommodations is very costly. We have had studies that show the average cost of providing a reasonable accommodation is $100. Employers often worry how much it is going to cost them to get a monitor. We have found in working with our state rehabilitation centres that often these resources are available at no cost to the employer.

    I have found that the most effective way of working with small businesses and mid-sized businesses is at the local level, educating them on the resources that are available to them. We've also found that individuals with disabilities stay longer, because of their difficulties in seeking other employment opportunities. So they're a much more predictable, more stable workforce.

    I believe this particular group is the one category we can all fall into at any point in our lives, as well as the aging category. They go together. When we combine the incentives and the benefits, when we get them to focus on the ability.... The previous chair of EEOC, who actually spearheaded the enactment of the ABA, was Evan Kemp, who used a wheelchair himself. He said we will know we've arrived when people with a disability can be fired; if they're fired, that means they have been hired. Don't even think about firing and all these other issues that are typically the focus we have for all the other laws: I was fired because I'm over 65, I was fired for this reason. For us, it's really a matter of how we mainstream them. And so the focus of this law has to be more, I think, on the consultative side than on the enforcement side.

    Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Malhi.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    First, do new immigrants, especially women, face extra obstacles in seeking employment due to their lack of American experience? If so, what is the government doing on that?

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: We have found a variety of issues, one of which may have to do with language barriers. We have taken a very strong position. Even when we're faced with undocumented workers, which is a vast component of our national origin discrimination charge load, with a lot of undocumented workers being harassed, EEOC does not look at the immigration status. We try to allay those concerns and let the working men and women, who may or may not be documented, know that our responsibility is to make sure they're being treated equally and fairly in the workplace. We have a very strong outreach. We have our EEOC posters translated into a variety of languages. We have a lot of meetings and sessions reaching out to migrant workers. For example, I was in California with the grape growers, and a lot of women in those areas don't speak English. Fortunately, I speak Spanish, so I was able to communicate with them. We're finding there are a number of issues, one of which is proficiency in language.

    We're also finding that most of these immigrants who did not come into Amercica under the H-1B, the highly technical visas--because we have that group of the population--are coming in as service workers, housekeepers, and hotel maintenance. Those are the groups that are often subjected to harassment and retaliation. For them it's fear of coming to a government agency, fear of being deported, if they're illegals. For us it's allaying those concerns and letting them know they are protected under our laws.

  (1220)  

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: In the last seven years roughly 1.4 million people have migrated to Canada. Many of them are part of visible minorities in Canada. Many of them are highly qualified, like doctors, engineers, but cannot get work in their field, because their foreign credentials are not recognized. Is this also the situation in the U.S.?

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: Yes. We have a lot of issues that relate to licensing. We have a lot of individuals working as service workers who are highly skilled, but because of the very strict licensing requirements that are being imposed, are not able to practise their profession.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: What are they going to do to recognize their credentials? Is there any policy or program to improve that?

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: Yes. Although it's not part of our responsibility, I believe there are a number of services on the social services side to help individuals, first through better use of the language. The challenge is passing those tests. That's really the challenge they're facing. The resources are available, but when you're faced with having to maintain a family, keep a roof over your head, and do these things at the same time, it's a real challenge for any immigrant.

    Mr. Gurbax Malhi: After September 11 I got some calls from the States too. There was discrimination at the workplace due to different religion or dress code. Have you heard anything about what they're going to do about this? Have they done anything?

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: We have been extremely proactive since September 11. As I mentioned earlier, we've received close to 500 charges so far. My first commission meeting as chair of the EEOC had to do with how employers have been responding to the backlash since September 11, and we had a number of employers who came and testified about what they were doing. What we discovered was that employers who have been very proactive in reaching out did not have any issues relating to backlash discrimination. Employers who were much more sedentary and let things run their course face some serious challenges.

    I personally met with all the leaders of the Muslims, Sikhs, the Arab-American Institute to find out how we could be more helpful. We translated our posters into Arabic and Farsi. We have been working in those cities with large populations of Arab-Americans, for example, Detroit, and working very closely with the community. We've been working with the Department of Justice, with the Department of Labor. We issued, for the first time, a joint statement signed by Labour, Justice, and the EEOC providing some technical guidance to the employers. We went to mosques and other areas and alerted not only the employers, but the employees as to what the rights and responsibilities were.

    We did not maintain stand-alone data prior to September 11, so it's hard to gauge how much the lay-offs had to do with religious or national origin discrimination and how much they had to do with the economic downturn that was triggered after September 11. The economy, as we know, was terribly affected.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. McGuire, please.

    Mr. Joe McGuire: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    You say you are operating under an executive order. How does that differ from an act of Congress?

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: The executive order that's currently being administered by the Department of Labor is a mandate signed by the President, and so it falls under the executive authorities of the President. In this instance the President has stated--and it's based on procurement law--that as a condition of procuring goods and services on behalf of the government, you must sign this contract that has an equal employment opportunity clause in it. That is the clause that then allows the Department of Labor to monitor the employment practices and requires the development of an affirmative action program.

  (1225)  

    Mr. Joe McGuire: Why wouldn't there be an act of Congress, a federal law enacted by the two houses, rather than an executive order of 1964?

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: The executive orders have been in place since President Roosevelt back in the 1940s, and this is the last one we've been operating under by President Johnson. I suspect that if a President chooses to rescind that executive order, our legislative body would step up and issue a legislative bill.

    Mr. Joe McGuire: Do the state legislatures have affirmative action laws or acts?

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: Yes. They're operating under the affirmative employment program, which is the program that's managed through the executive branch.

    Mr. Joe McGuire: Do all the states have affirmative action programs?

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: I think they do, don't they, Corbett?

    Mr. Corbett Anderson: I'm not clear on that. I'm not sure. Sorry.

    Mr. Joe McGuire: So would the executive order have authority in a state that didn't have one?

    Mr. Corbett Anderson: The executive order applies to companies that contract with the federal government. There's also a procurement law that mandates that state governments who receive federal funds for various programs have a non-discrimination obligation, and under that obligation, it may be true that affirmative action is required.

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: We have the ones with a condition of doing business with the government. That's the executive order that I mentioned. Federal agencies are required to not only not discriminate, but to maintain affirmative employment programs. At the state and local levels, it's my understanding that those laws have been, for the most part, replicated through governors' orders and other kinds of executive orders.

    Mr. Joe McGuire: Are you finding that new entrepreneurs are more open to hiring, they're colour-blind, they couldn't care less what religion you are, or whatever, as opposed to older entrepreneurs coming from a different era? Is there any improvement as we go along in our evolution? We're both nations of immigrants. Is that fact becoming more recognized in people's minds, without the necessity to resort to law for direction?

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: For example, what we witnessed during the boom of dot-com companies was that a lot of these twenty-something CEOs welcomed mature employees. They welcomed older workers who would provide some stability. Their style of working was more 24-7, they'd be up half the night, and so they were looking for people who were flexible and adaptable, as well as people who could provide some semblance of stability and maturity. So to that extent, yes, I think it was an era that was very open to talent and inclusive, and they didn't care where it came from or what it looked like.

    Now, unfortunately, we're on to the next stage of dot-com development. I believe it's a generational issue. I call this millennium the mélange millennium, because ethnically, we're much more merged now--the Tiger Woods syndrome we talk about. We also talk about people who are much more technically literate. Again, it goes back to the skills base. Secretary of Labour Elaine Chao had a summit last summer in which she mentioned that the average 32-year-old today has already had eight jobs in his or her lifetime. We were raised with the womb to tomb concept: you stay here and you wait for your gold watch. That's no longer the case. In fact, if you stay with a company too long, they wonder what's wrong with you.

  (1230)  

    Mr. Joe McGuire: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

    Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    The material provided notes that there are 75,000 to 80,000 complaints a year under this legislation in the United States. Has there been an evolution in the kind of complaint? Has there been a movement from very basic complaints to complaints which are more complex, more elaborate?

[English]

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: When I joined the commission, I pooled the pattern of charge activity, and interestingly, we discovered that we have been receiving an average of about 80,000 charges fairly consistently. The issues have been primarily with the types of allegations. Whereas in the eighties, for example, it was failure to hire and failure to promote, today it's more harassment, retaliation, failure to accommodate. So we have had a difference in the issues on which charging parties are coming to the commission.

    We've also noted that we're missing out in respect of the issues that are truly affecting a broader group of workers, because the typical charging party is an hourly individual working in some of the unsophisticated work environments. So that's been an area where we feel we need to broaden our scope and reach out to those groups who may continue to be discriminated against, but have not been coming to the commission for help.

    Mr. Corbett Anderson: I would add that charges we receive today are different from those we've traditionally received, in that the allegations are more complex. As Chair Dominguez has mentioned, we're no longer seeing as many charges involving blatantly discriminatory policies or facial discrimination. The issues now are more subtle, subjective policies for who gets hired, who gets promoted, who gets training, who gets mentoring, those types of things.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Tonks.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

    We were talking about globalization and what the future holds with respect to skill groups. You talked about immigration. My colleague talked about the issue with respect to credentials, qualifications, and so on. Is there an intervener action plan with respect to that issue in the United States? Is it a concern across the full spectrum of skilled trades and so on? If so, is there a strategy to deal with that?

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: My experience has shown that different circumstances require different approaches. For example, historically, we have not made a lot of progress in increasing the participation of women in the skilled trades. For a great many years we've had a 6.9% affirmative action goal to get women into the welders, carpenters, and those types of jobs. We've been hovering around 4% to 4.5% for years and years. The issues there might be quite different. It may be access to apprenticeship programs, it may be access to the union holes and how they get assigned to contract work. That will require a totally different approach from that towards the issues some of the service workers who are undocumented and may be working in the fields or as housekeepers at hotels are facing.

    The running theme for all our responsibilities at those levels has to do with, I believe, outreach and trust. If they trust us to protect them, they don't see it as a way they're going to lose their jobs, then we can make some headway. I do think it has to do with how we segment the population and what the issues are. One of the things I'm trying to do is look at these trends of harassment and retaliation and try to figure out where it is occurring. Is the northwest in our country more involved with harassment? Is the southeast? Then I can put together some intervention strategies to address that.

  (1235)  

    Mr. Alan Tonks: This committee is on human resources development, which term suggests that capacity building and the tools to do the job are linked in respect of policies that we apply and strategies to back those policies up. Human Resources Development has some authority over apprenticeship training, dealing with capacity building as it relates to skills development. Where you see an aberration in statistics and your data are telling you there's a huge gap, do you have the capacity to plug in the programs that would deal with this?

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: The commission itself does not, but we do have, within the Department of Labor, as its the biggest agency, the Employment and Training Administration. It has job centres, it has funding for training programs. They work in concert with industry and trade groups to identify the skills gaps, the needs, and then what kinds of training programs we want to fund or develop. So it requires partnership. We find out what the issues are, we share that, then they go off and put together apprenticeship programs, trade training, etc.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Before we wind up, I have three quick questions. It's one of the prerogatives of the chair after we're all finished, if there's a little bit of time.

    I'd like to know your source of data collection and how often it's updated. I'm thinking particularly about persons with disabilities and labour force availability.

    Mr. Corbett Anderson: Under the executive order program enforced by the Department of Labor, and actually under a statute called the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, companies must invite individuals with disabilities to identify themselves after an offer has been made, but prior to employment. Federal contractors are required to practise affirmative action, to employ individuals with disabilities. As Chair Dominguez mentioned, disabilities cover a wide spectrum, and unfortunately, our census data do not capture accurately that spectrum. So although data are collected on the number of individuals with disabilities in the workforce, they're not collected on an aggregate nationwide level.

    The Chair: On those who were available for work.

    Mr. Corbett Anderson: Right. The labour market availability data simply don't exist in the United States.

    The Chair: The EEOC is responsible for enforcing affirmative action in the federal public sector. Are the affirmative action compliance requirements of the federal departments different from those of federal contractors, for example?

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: It's not as sophisticated. One of my goals is to have the federal sector affirmative employment programs mirror those of the private sector. I think the private sector is far more sophisticated and advanced. Our categories for data collection in the federal sector are very broad, professionals, administrative, technical. We're hoping, now we have Census 2000 data, to refine those occupational categories and use them to more closely track availability and participation within the federal sector.

    I've not mentioned the federal sector. I mentioned that we had 80,000 charges in the private sector. Just so you know, we have 24,000 charges a year filed by federal sector employees. If we conservatively cost them at $40,000 to $50,000 to process a charge, we're looking at a couple of hundred millions dollars a year. It's very expensive, and I think the reason is that it suffered in attention. We need to introduce the same programs, like mediation, like expedited charge handling processes, that have worked so well in the private sector. We need to use those in the public sector. That's one of the things we have set on foot recently.

  (1240)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Before I wrap up, if there are any closing remarks either you or Mr. Anderson want to make, we'd be happy to hear them.

    Ms. Cari Dominguez: Madam Chair and distinguished members of the committee, we're very honoured to be here. We hope this will serve as a foundation. We're more than willing to participate if you have further needs, specific data requests, or anything we can help you with. Likewise, we look forward to exchanging practices and ideas, so that we too can strengthen our own efforts.

    So thank you very much for your wonderful and kind invitation.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    On behalf of the committee, and I'm sure the staff and everyone who's been here, I would say you've certainly demonstrated why your nomination by George Bush received the unanimous consent of Senate. We are very honoured to have had you with us.

    I will suspend for a moment while our deputation leaves and we say our goodbyes, and then we'll reconvene in camera.

    [Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]